An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 9/11 demolition theory challengedDr. Keith A. SeffenCUED home page - Dr Keith A SEFFENBelow is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder...

"9/11 And The British Broadcasting Conspiracy" pays particular attention to the Conspiracy Files programme aired on BBC Two on February 18, 2007, which attempted to explain the 9/11 truth movement as a psychological aberration, independent of the mismatch between available evidence and official story.

On September 11, 2007, the BBC ran a piece based on a press release from the University of Cambridge, "9/11 demolition theory challenged", which described research purportedly done by senior lecturer Keith Seffen. Nearly two months later, the world has seen no sign of any such research..

If Keith Seffen and the BBC and Cambridge andRoss Corotis and the JEM are all collaborating on such an obvious fraud as pretending there's a paper when there isn't, then the world should know about it, in my view.

If there is such a paper, then where is it? Has it been published or not? Is it scheduled to be published or not? Is it available for review? All these questions have been ignored. In other words, there's your answer.

If there is such a paper, then we should be able to see it and review it and decide on the basis of the math whether or not it makes sense, whether or not the collapse it describes is plausible, and equally important, whether or not the collapse it describes corresponds to what we know about the events of the day.

And if there is no paper, are we looking at accessories-after-the-fact in a case of mass murder?

Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.

CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.

MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.

Who told the fireman, cop, and Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" that WTC-7 was going to implode??? Why were Ms. Goodman and many other ... all » people pre-assembled to see the building drop about a mile north of the site??? Who provided them with this inexplicable foreknowledge??? Why has Ms. Goodman never explained any of this, despite the fact that she can be seen running & yelling, "Oh God!", as WTC-7 falls in a controlled demolition??? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4094539209684370800&amp;q=amy goodman wtc7

November 29, 2006 -- Billionaire insurance titan Maurice "Hank" Greenberg has begun buying huge blocks of New York Times stock to break the Sulzberger family's stranglehold on the media empire, The Post has learned.

Sources confirmed that the famously combative Greenberg has been buying hundreds of thousands of Times shares, but did not disclose the exact number or the size of the stake he wants to own.

Greenberg has both the assets - Forbes estimated his net worth at $3.2 billion - and the temperament to jump into a fight over the future of the stumbling newspaper giant.

A major stock position would put Greenberg in league with already angry Times' shareholders, such as Morgan Stanley Investment Management, to battle the board over whether the founding Ochs-Sulzberger family should hold a powerful class of stock that accounts for a majority of the voting power at the company.

A Times spokeswoman said the Ochs-Sulzberger family has given no indication that it wishes to change the so-called dual-class structure.

Sources said Greenberg views the Times, which has a market cap of $3.3 billion, as a top-flight brand but one with an "artificially depressed" stock price.

Times shares have plunged almost 15 percent in the last year, a drop that has put enormous pressure on Chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., the family scion who has been at the helm of the company since 1997.

The stock is well off its 52-week high of $28.98 that it hit in February. In November 2004, Times shares traded above $40 before they began their free-fall.

On Nov. 13, the New York Times reported that Greenberg was considering a bid for the Tribune Company or Dow Jones, and consulting with bankers and lawyers about a possible offer.

Shareholder watchdogs have slammed Times management as overpaid - criticism that forced Sulzberger and his cousin, Vice Chairman Michael Golden, to say in September they would forgo about $2 million in stock awards and pump it into a bonus pool for the company's employees.

Greenberg, a legendary figure in the New York financial community, ran AIG for nearly 40 years before being deposed in a bitter boardroom coup after New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer alleged the company engaged in accounting improprieties.

Spitzer eventually filed charges against Greenberg and ex-AIG CFO Howard Smith. Fighting back bitterly in the courts and the media, Greenberg eventually got Spitzer to drop all criminal charges against him.

Spitzer is still pursuing civil charges against Greenberg, although he has dropped two of his six original allegations.

A Greenberg spokesman declined to discuss the specifics of his investment in the Times, but told The Post, "Mr. Greenberg is interested in exploring several options with respect to media companies."

So how did "Hammerin' Hank" accumulate the wealth necessary to buy the NY Times?9/11 and the Greenberg FamiliaBy Jerry MazzaOnline Journal Associate Editor

Democratic Underground Demopedia reports in Who Killed John O’Neill?that at the time of 9/11, AIG, the world’s largest insurance company, and subsidiaries Marsh McLennan, ACE and Kroll, were run by the Greenberg family. With Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Maurice “Hank” Greenberg as the AIG godfather, the Familia’s tentacles curled around the heart of the tragedy.

Hank’s son Jeffrey, a CFR member as well, was chairman of Marsh & McLennan, situated on floors throughout the North Tower of the World Trade Center as well as the top floors of the South Tower. Marsh also had ties to the CIA. Son Evan Greenberg, a CFR member, was CEO of ACE Limited, situated in Tower 7, which also contained AIG subsidiary Kroll, closely related to the CIA, also with an office in Tower 7.

Greenberg’s cousin, Alan “Ace” Greenberg, was former CEO of Bear Sterns, where the Bush family, Cheney family George Schultz, James Baker, et al, did business. It is the leading brokerage firm of the great and all-powerful Bush Familia.

Also reported by Democratic Underground, AIG’s Kroll “provided protection services,” among other things, to high level Americans at home and abroad. Kroll had military teams in their company and merged with Armor Holdings on August 23, 2001, adding Defence Systems Limited, another private military corporation, to their operation, and an ex-KGB team called Alpha Firm earlier acquired by Defense Systems Limited. These four teams could have been used on 9/11, part of a “corporatizing” of black ops in tandem with military teams.

According to whistleblower Richard Grove, who worked as a senior manager for SilverStream Software on Marsh and AIG accounts, Kroll also managed the Enron fraud once Kenneth Lay stepped down.

Marsh, immediately after 9/11, established a specialized terrorism team called Marsh Crisis Consultancy (led by L. Paul Bremer III), adding the teams Control Risks Group, a British ex-SAS team and Versar, bio-terrorism and homeland defense team. These players could have known each other from 9/11, bringing in new assignments and profits.

Democratic Underground also reports, AIG allegedly was laundering drug money, and was involved in the Afghanistan oil and gas pipelines. Greenberg and the Adnan Khasshogi family allegedly benefited from the Afghanistan narcotics trade and interests in the oil and gas pipelines, as well.

Greenberg’s Law Firm Connections to Bush

According to www.sourcewatch.org, the Greenbergs were and are connected to the Bush Familia via their Miami-based law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP, a 1,350-lawyer, full-service international firm. Here are a few connects . . .

3) They hired son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Election Day 2000 -- after which Justice Scalia cast one of the 5 to 4 deciding votes that placed Bush in the White House.

4) They partially funded/sponsored a delegation to Israel by House-Senate Armed Services Committee members and government contractors to witness and be briefed on interrogations resistance procedures and torture techniques.

5) The firm has prominent administrative positions in Massachusetts 9/11 Fund, which also involves Bush family banking house Brown Brothers Harriman (the same BBH involved with Prescott Bush’s bankrolling the Nazis in World War II).

6) Traurig Greenberg works with 9-11 victims on planning their US government “hushmail/bribery estates.” That is, to receive the money, the victim’s family must sign an agreement never to sue the government for any reason. Victim-wife Ellen Mariani is currently being legally harassed for not signing and for holding the Bush government’s feet to the fire.

7) Bush still owes the Greenberg Traurig firm nearly $1 million for work done by dozens of lawyers and paralegals, leaving questions why a Republican candidate would hire a Democratic lawyer from a Democratic firm. See Greenberg Traurig link above for more scandals.

Greenberg’s Relationship to Larry Silverstein

On July 24, 2001, six weeks before 9/11, Larry Silverstein took control of the lease of all the WTC buildings. This followed the Port Authority decision on April 26.

According to democraticunderground.com, the three companies who originally insured the WTC were AIG, Marsh and ACE, all run as mentioned by the Greenbergs at the time. They then sold stakes of the original contract to their competition, a technique called reinsuring.

Once the Towers came down, the reinsurers got caught holding the bag. This would inextricably tie the Greenbergs to Silverstein and the larger conspiracy of 9/11. If they had no foreknowledge of events to occur, why would the Greenbergs have unloaded so many stakes in their contract?

According to Michel Chossudovsky in Financial Bonanza behind the 9/11 Tragedy, “On October 17, 2000, eleven months before 9/11, Blackstone Real Estate Advisors, of The Blackstone Group, L.P, purchased, from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, the participating mortgage secured by World Trade Center, Building 7.1.” [Blackstone in 2000 also purchased a 50 percent stake in Universal Studios, producers of the myth-perpetuating Flight 93.]

“April 26, 2001 the Port Authority leased the WTC for 99 years to Silverstein Properties and Westfield America Inc.

“The transaction was authorised by Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg. This transfer from the New York and New Jersey Port Authority was tantamount to the privatisation of the WTC Complex. The official press release described it as ‘the richest real estate prize in New York City history.’ The retail space underneath the complex was leased to Westfield America Inc.

“On 24 July 2001, 6 weeks prior to 9/11 Silverstein took control of the lease of the WTC following the Port Authority decision on April 26.

“Silverstein and Frank Lowy, CEO of Westefield Inc. took control of the 10.6 million-square-foot WTC complex.

"Lowy leased the shopping concourse called the Mall at the WTC, which comprised about 427,000 square feet of retail space.”

“Explicitly included in the agreement was that Silverstein and Westfield ‘were given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed.'’

“In this transaction, Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC over 99 years amounting to 3.2 billion dollars in installments to be made to the Port Authority: 800 million covered fees including a down payment of the order of 100 million dollars. Of this amount, Silverstein put in 14 million dollars of his own money. The annual payment on the lease was of the order of 115 million dollars.

“In the wake of the WTC attacks, Silverstein is suing for some $7.1 billion in insurance money, double the amount of the value of the 99 year lease.” In fact, some $5 billion was actually returned, given the multiple court-case protests of the insurers.

“The mortgaging of the WTC was handled by The Blackstone Group, headed by Peter J. Peterson, current head of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The Blackstone Group also bought a piece of Kroll in 1993 at the very same time AIG took over majority control. Henry Kissinger sits on the board of the Blackstone Group.”

By his own admission Silverstein had Tower 7 pulled by controlled internal demolition eight hours after the first two hits. No plane hit Tower 7. There were two small fires in it that were under control. In fact, it takes weeks, months to set up a building to be pulled. So his order to “pull it” catches him in a huge lie. Tower 7 may have been the nexus of the operations. That may have been the real reason to pull it. In fact, it may have been set up weeks in advance with Towers 1 and 2 for demolition. Ironically, Tower 7 is the only tower that has been rebuilt, and more opulently than its predecessor, although tenancy is about 18 percent.Towers Taken Down for Profit and to Blame Muslims

Given the involvement of the Greenbergs and Silverstein, and other commercial entities that stood to profit hugely, it is difficult to believe 9/11 occurred at the hands of 19 rag-tag Muslims with box-cutters and the help of their leader, Osama bin Laden, sitting in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan with his laptop and dialysis equipment. The real reasons behind 9/11 were financial greed and the willingness to demonize Muslims for the “Pearl Harbor-type” act that would instigate America to wage a war on terror, pursuing PNAC’s (Project for a New American Century) goal of World Hegemony.

The latest documentary on the WTC, The 911 Mysteries from 911WeKnow.com, provides highly convincing proof that the buildings were taken down in six fatal steps. They involved the use of high-powered explosives, including thermite and/or thermate, with techniques more advanced than those of traditional controlled-demolition companies, most likely the military’s, given their bunker buster technology. The six steps are . . .

1.Pre-collapse sub-basement explosions2.Pre-collapse interior blasts3.Pre-collapse ground level explosions4.Top level collapse initiation5.Mid Collapse Squibs (explosions)6.Final time-delayed rolls (explosions) Without all these steps, the Towers could never have free-fallen in 10 seconds, the speed of gravity. Any obstacles or pancaking had to be eliminated otherwise the number of seconds of fall would increase dramatically. The documentary also reminds us that on February 13, 1975 there was a major fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower that did not topple it, though the loss was estimated at over $2 million, no mean event. Check it out.

It is possible that in 1996, when Securacom took over WTC security and installed a new $8.3 million security system, that the explosives and charges were also put in place. Sitting on the board of Securacom was the director Marvin Bush, George Bush’s younger brother.

In any case, this is patently the confluence of the military/industrial complex with a healthy dose of Wall Street, earning millions if not billions in put and call options on companies involved with the catastrophe, including airlines on the down (put) side and military suppliers on the up (call) side. In addition, there is the missing gold from the basement of Tower 4, $200 million of which was retrieved, and an untold amount stolen.

The real bottom line was that the Towers were two financial white elephants. And both Silverstein and Greenberg had to know that. The tenancy was dropping. They were out of date. And most dangerously, they were asbestos bombs, loaded with the dangerous building material when they were completed in 1972-73.

By law the buildings could not be taken down by internal demolition. And since it would cost a billion dollars or more to take the towers down beam by beam, it would be at great loss to the Port of Authority or its leaseholder. Thus the reasons are obvious to take WTC down in act of terror also a false-flag operation. Remember, the concept for the WTC Towers originated with the Nelson and David Rockefeller, members of the Council on Foreign Relations and among the world’s elites. A “New Pearl Harbor” would serve those interests well.

Additional Connections to Greenberg

John O’Neill, mentioned in the first paragraph, was the FBI anti-terror chief who spent years trying to track down bin Laden and “al Qaeda” members. At every point, he was stopped or frustrated by his superiors. Finally, O’Neill parted company with the FBI. Jerome Hauer, who formerly worked for Kroll, got him the job as chief of security at the WTC. On 9/11, O’Neill lost his life in the North Tower.

Mr. Hauer’s job as Kroll chief was also held by Michael Cherkasky, who came out of the New York County District Attorney’s Office, which also brought us Rudy Giuliani, Elliot Spitzer and Patrick Fitzgerald. Mr. Cherkasky also brought Mr. Spitzer into the NYC County DA’s office. Today Cherkasky is a substantial contributor to Spitzer’s campaign for New York State Governor. Cherkasky was bumped up to head Marsh McLennan in 2004.

As an aside, there were about 200 electrical engineers working in the World Trade Center around the time. Additionally, AMEC and Tully Construction played a major role in the clean up of Ground Zero and both have specialized controlled demolition companies.

In a major story noticeably missing from mainstream corporate headlines, Dubai Ports World (DPW) has been acquired by American International Group (AIG). Recall that DPW was the focus of a loud outcry across the nation, and the scandal over US port security.Now US ports are controlled by a worldwide conglomerate that is rooted to narco-trafficking, intelligence, money laundering, war profiteering, and terrorism (also see here). AIG is the former bastion of scandalized super-elite Maurice "Hank" Greenberg.Where is the outcry, now that the house of Hank Greenberg controls the ports? Where is the outcry, as government-connected elite interests increasingly seize control of the US energy infrastructure?http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1547.shtml

The Spitzer administration announced the settlement of all insurance claims at ground zero yesterday, ensuring that $4.55 billion will be available for rebuilding the World Trade Center site.

The agreement, which the insurers described as the largest single insurance settlement ever undertaken by the industry, ended a protracted legal battle with insurers over payouts related to the terrorist attack.

New York State and Port Authority officials said yesterday that the deal removed any uncertainty over how much money would be available for rebuilding and would enable them to obtain private financing for the $9 billion project..

“Look how far we’ve come in the last year,” Mr. Silverstein said yesterday. “A year ago today, we opened 7 World Trade Center, a huge success and a validation of downtown as a world-class business district. We’ve started construction on the Freedom Tower. We reached an agreement on who would build what and when. And now we have the resources to rebuild as quickly and spectacularly as possible.”..

Andreas Shell, claims crisis coordinator for Allianz, said at a news conference that it was the largest insurance settlement in industry history and that his company was “extremely happy with the result.”

The insurance battle has been complicated from the start by the circumstances of Mr. Silverstein’s lease of the trade center and the destruction of the complex by terrorists six weeks later. At that time, two dozen insurers had signed binders pledging to provide $3.5 billion in insurance coverage, but had not finished the documents.

An ugly dispute developed over which insurance policy was in effect at the time of the attack. Mr. Silverstein argued that since two jetliners had slammed into the two towers, he was entitled to a double payment on the $3.5 billion policy. But many of the insurers countered that they had agreed to a different policy that did not permit double claims.

In the sparring, the insurers attempted to paint Mr. Silverstein as a rapacious developer interested only in profiteering, while he asserted that the companies were being tight-fisted and shirking their moral and legal responsibilities..

Also, both Giuliani and Silverstein had foreknowledge of the fact that the Twin Trade Towers were asbestos “bombs,” that is they were loaded with the lethal insulating material when they were built in the early 70s. The towers were not permitted to be leveled by internal demolition because they were part of a public trust, The Port of Authority of New York and New Jersey, established by the Rockefeller family. Nevertheless, the towers had to come down by law by about 2007. Unfortunately, they would have had to be disassembled piece by piece at a cost of some $10 billion dollars plus.

Mr. Giuliani knew all this. Mr. Silverstein knew this when he leased the buildings less than two months before 9/11. Perhaps that’s why Silverstein upped the insurance to $3.5 billion, with provision for coverage from “terror attacks.” He later tried to collect for each hit separately, which would have given him more than $7 billion. As of, March 24, 2003, the Times reports on the final settlement in Insurers Agree to Pay Billions at Ground Zero. A second contract, which provided for the double payment had not been fully completed when the acts occurred, and thus triggered the six years of litigation. Yet consider how prescient it was of Mr. Silverstein to ask for it in the first place.

This last Times article also tells us that New York’s Governor Eliot Spitzer brokered the deal for the remaining seven (out of two dozen insurers) who had not already settled. Allianz Global Risks, Travelers Companies, Zurich, Swiss Re, Employers, Insurance, Industrial Risk Insurers and Royal Indemnity, agreed to pay a total of $2 billion dollars. The other insurers had already kicked in $2.55 billion, bringing the total to $4.55 billion, which will be awarded to Silverstein and the Port Authority after millions in litigation were spent.

Of this award, Silverstein will get $1.13 billion for three large office towers (Towers 2, 3, and 4), to be built on Church Street, between Vesey and Liberty Streets, on the east side of the WTC complex. The remaining $870 million will go the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which actually owns the land at ground zero and is the original builder of the WTC. The new money will go towards the building of both the $3 billion Freedom Tower, tallest and of the buildings planned to be built, and Tower 5. The insurance money will cover half of the $9 billion cost of erecting five towers, retail space and conceivably a hotel. Remember, the original down payment made by Silverstein and partners to secure the original 99 year lease of the WTC @ $120 million a year was $125 million. Of this, Silverstein’s silent partner, Lloyd Goldman put up $80 million and Lucky Larry a mere $14 million in the deal. Not a bad deal for Larry.

more Mazza

Greenberg’s Relationship to Larry Silverstein

On July 24, 2001, six weeks before 9/11, Larry Silverstein took control of the lease of all the WTC buildings. This followed the Port Authority decision on April 26.

According to democraticunderground.com, the three companies who originally insured the WTC were AIG, Marsh and ACE, all run as mentioned by the Greenbergs at the time. They then sold stakes of the original contract to their competition, a technique called reinsuring.

Once the Towers came down, the reinsurers got caught holding the bag. This would inextricably tie the Greenbergs to Silverstein and the larger conspiracy of 9/11. If they had no foreknowledge of events to occur, why would the Greenbergs have unloaded so many stakes in their contract?

According to Michel Chossudovsky in Financial Bonanza behind the 9/11 Tragedy, “On October 17, 2000, eleven months before 9/11, Blackstone Real Estate Advisors, of The Blackstone Group, L.P, purchased, from Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, the participating mortgage secured by World Trade Center, Building 7.1.” [Blackstone in 2000 also purchased a 50 percent stake in Universal Studios, producers of the myth-perpetuating Flight 93.]

“April 26, 2001 the Port Authority leased the WTC for 99 years to Silverstein Properties and Westfield America Inc.

“The transaction was authorised by Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg. This transfer from the New York and New Jersey Port Authority was tantamount to the privatisation of the WTC Complex. The official press release described it as ‘the richest real estate prize in New York City history.’ The retail space underneath the complex was leased to Westfield America Inc.

“On 24 July 2001, 6 weeks prior to 9/11 Silverstein took control of the lease of the WTC following the Port Authority decision on April 26.

“Silverstein and Frank Lowy, CEO of Westefield Inc. took control of the 10.6 million-square-foot WTC complex.

"Lowy leased the shopping concourse called the Mall at the WTC, which comprised about 427,000 square feet of retail space.”

“Explicitly included in the agreement was that Silverstein and Westfield ‘were given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed.'’

“In this transaction, Silverstein signed a rental contract for the WTC over 99 years amounting to 3.2 billion dollars in installments to be made to the Port Authority: 800 million covered fees including a down payment of the order of 100 million dollars. Of this amount, Silverstein put in 14 million dollars of his own money. The annual payment on the lease was of the order of 115 million dollars.

“In the wake of the WTC attacks, Silverstein is suing for some $7.1 billion in insurance money, double the amount of the value of the 99 year lease.” In fact, some $5 billion was actually returned, given the multiple court-case protests of the insurers.

“The mortgaging of the WTC was handled by The Blackstone Group, headed by Peter J. Peterson, current head of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The Blackstone Group also bought a piece of Kroll in 1993 at the very same time AIG took over majority control. Henry Kissinger sits on the board of the Blackstone Group.”

By his own admission Silverstein had Tower 7 pulled by controlled internal demolition eight hours after the first two hits. No plane hit Tower 7. There were two small fires in it that were under control. In fact, it takes weeks, months to set up a building to be pulled. So his order to “pull it” catches him in a huge lie. Tower 7 may have been the nexus of the operations. That may have been the real reason to pull it. In fact, it may have been set up weeks in advance with Towers 1 and 2 for demolition. Ironically, Tower 7 is the only tower that has been rebuilt, and more opulently than its predecessor, although tenancy is about 18 percent.Towers Taken Down for Profit and to Blame Muslims

Given the involvement of the Greenbergs and Silverstein, and other commercial entities that stood to profit hugely, it is difficult to believe 9/11 occurred at the hands of 19 rag-tag Muslims with box-cutters and the help of their leader, Osama bin Laden, sitting in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan with his laptop and dialysis equipment. The real reasons behind 9/11 were financial greed and the willingness to demonize Muslims for the “Pearl Harbor-type” act that would instigate America to wage a war on terror, pursuing PNAC’s (Project for a New American Century) goal of World Hegemony.

The latest documentary on the WTC, The 911 Mysteries from 911WeKnow.com, provides highly convincing proof that the buildings were taken down in six fatal steps. They involved the use of high-powered explosives, including thermite and/or thermate, with techniques more advanced than those of traditional controlled-demolition companies, most likely the military’s, given their bunker buster technology. The six steps are . . .

Without all these steps, the Towers could never have free-fallen in 10 seconds, the speed of gravity. Any obstacles or pancaking had to be eliminated otherwise the number of seconds of fall would increase dramatically. The documentary also reminds us that on February 13, 1975 there was a major fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower that did not topple it, though the loss was estimated at over $2 million, no mean event. Check it out.

It is possible that in 1996, when Securacom took over WTC security and installed a new $8.3 million security system, that the explosives and charges were also put in place. Sitting on the board of Securacom was the director Marvin Bush, George Bush’s younger brother.

In any case, this is patently the confluence of the military/industrial complex with a healthy dose of Wall Street, earning millions if not billions in put and call options on companies involved with the catastrophe, including airlines on the down (put) side and military suppliers on the up (call) side. In addition, there is the missing gold from the basement of Tower 4, $200 million of which was retrieved, and an untold amount stolen.

The real bottom line was that the Towers were two financial white elephants. And both Silverstein and Greenberg had to know that. The tenancy was dropping. They were out of date. And most dangerously, they were asbestos bombs, loaded with the dangerous building material when they were completed in 1972-73.

By law the buildings could not be taken down by internal demolition. And since it would cost a billion dollars or more to take the towers down beam by beam, it would be at great loss to the Port of Authority or its leaseholder. Thus the reasons are obvious to take WTC down in act of terror also a false-flag operation. Remember, the concept for the WTC Towers originated with the Nelson and David Rockefeller, members of the Council on Foreign Relations and among the world’s elites. A “New Pearl Harbor” would serve those interests well.

The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: "The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid". This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE)which stated: "despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.”

It should be noted that the National Science Foundation (NSF), the agency that funded the Purdue study, is an agency whose board was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for such employers such as General Electric Company(which owns NBC/universal), Battelle Northwest Laboratories who has been focused on nuclear technology and the environmental and health effects of radiation, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), who is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military.

The question that needs to be addressed here is:

Why would an agency whose director has been a key player in military black-op projects for years be appointed to fund a study to conclusively show how the twin towers collapse occurred?

INDIANAPOLIS — A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation

GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

NIST WTC 7 Report: Shameful, Embarrassing And Completely FlawedIn its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?http://www.infowars.com/?p=4114